Good dad, bad for you: The true motive behind the murder of Ryan Lane

“Good dad, bad for you”: Cuthill wanted Lane gone because he was good father

Accused murderer Sheena Cuthill gave testimony to the Court on Monday April 11, 2016, which she later she later admitted was untrue after cross-examination by the prosecution.

She took the stand for the second time at the Court of the Queen’s Bench in Calgary, Alberta.

Cuthill was arrested on Nov. 28, 2012 after allegedly colluding with and giving the okay to husband Tim Rempel and brother-in-law Will Rempel to kill Ryan Lane, a man with whom she shared a daughter.

All three have been charged with first-degree murder and have pleaded not guilty.

Ryan Lane went missing on Feb.7, 2012, and his body was later discovered in an area near Beiseker in June 2012.

It is believed that he was lured to a northwest location before he was kidnapped and subsequently murdered.

Cuthill said that she was trying to get full custody of her daughter Jordan so that her new partner Tim Rempel could adopt Jordan as his own.

She said that originally Will Rempel had offered to send some friends to go talk to Lane and possibly intimidate him into backing out of the custody battle.

“He just called them his ‘Mexican friends’,” said Cuthill.

After the plan fell through, Tim Rempel had insisted on “talking” to Lane himself.

Cuthill agreed with defence lawyer Allan Fay that Tim Rempel had only planned to talk to Lane to tell him that if he was going to try and keep custody he should “step up as a father.”

Crown prosecutor Tom Buglas later clarified during his cross-examination that Cuthill’s original testimony said that the point of the meeting with Lane was to make sure he left the custody battle, his home, and his loved ones.

“The plan was to make sure he didn’t even go home to his family to make sure they didn’t influence him,” said Buglas.

Cuthill replied, “Right.”

“Your plan was that Ryan wouldn’t just be scared out of [Jordan’s] life, but also out of his own life,” said Buglas. “That would be a threat of death, wouldn’t it?”

“Yes, I don’t know,” replied Cuthill.

Cuthill said that originally she said no to the “plan”, but later considered it after the recent visitation had gone well because she didn’t want Lane to form a relationship with her daughter and then stop visiting.

Buglas later brought up a suggestion that the reason Cuthill had said no was so that there would be no legal reflection on the custody battle if something illegal happened to Lane.

He brought up a text message sent to Tim Rempel from Cuthill that he said demonstrated that Cuthill’s real fear was legal repercussions.

It said, “Can I trust Will to do this without the cops showing up at my doorstep?”

“You said no because there would be legal blowback,” said Buglas.

Buglas suggested that Cuthill’s fears were that the good visitation would ensure more visiting, instead of removing it.

“The fact that he made your daughter smile, made you cry,” said Buglas. “Good dad, bad for you.”

Despite making remarks that she wouldn’t trust Lane to stay fully in her daughter’s life, she said she believed he would walk away after the discussion with both Tim and Will Rempel.

“I trusted him,” said Cuthill, in reference to Lane.

Justice Alan Macleod adjourned the case until Tuesday April 12, 2016, when Tim Rempel would take the stand.

The trial, which expected to last six weeks, had been ongoing since early March 2016.

In the end, Cuthill and her two cohorts were sentenced to life without parole for 25 years.

Miriam Johnston

Miriam Johnston

I am a third-year Communications Student from Calgary, Alberta as well as a piano teacher. I enjoy writing stories about interesting events. I have many hobbies including learning various languages and drawing. @MLJournalist